MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Making Space for the Economy: Live Performances, Dead Objects, and Economic Geography

2008· article· en· W1967846188 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography Compass · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences
KeywordsPerformativitySpace (punctuation)Strategic geographyPerspective (graphical)ConstitutionEconomic geographyPoliticsHistorical geographyWork (physics)Critical geographyHuman geographySociologyLocation theoryGeographyEconomyEconomicsPolitical scienceLawGender studiesLinguisticsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The article explores the usefulness of the recent literature on markets and performativity for economic geography. The article is divided into two main sections. The first reviews work on performativity, the idea that our statements and representations actively produce reality rather than being mere faithful copies of it. Writers in science studies, in particular, have taken up this notion and used it to understand the making of economic markets. The second argues that economic geography usefully amends the work on performance and economic markets by adding a geographical perspective that plays out in at least four registers: the performance of spatial theory; the geographical performance of economic theory; the spatial performance of market constitution; and the political performance of spatial markets.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it